Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[markie]

From page 18.


From page 20

On page 11 the picture of the apparatus shows a pressure gauge on the hydrogen inlet, while it doesn't appear to me to be a pressure control gauge "a constant hydrogen pressure of 1100 psig" is explicit in the documentation and "Calculations, documented in Appendix A". Also there appears to be no cutoff valve to retain some pressure if introduced once and just allowed to drift. Reporting of test condition data shows pressure is altered for different test runs indicating pressure control not shown or described in the documentation.

Again, please, read more and assume less.

I notice that page 4 is missing, which may have had some details on the pressure control. What is "explicit" is that a certain pressure of H2 gas, typical around 1000 psi was introduced at the *beginning*. The measurement of heat gain from this pressure increase was calculated for only one such application of pressure, so it is reasonable to assume there was only one application of pressure. Given this, the pressure in the tubing would be allowed to slowly decrease with time as hydrogen diffused through the tubing. Yes they used diffusion rate calculations as if the pressure was held steady at its initial state but imo that is just for calculation simplification purposes and would err on the conservative side.

If I am wrong and Thermacore's setup was actively maintaining a fixed pressure of hydrogen in the tubing, well then that would represent a pretty major blunder in the energy inventory calculation, something I find unlikely.

Recall what is on Thermacore's letterhead on the handwritten reports: "Thermacore Inc. Heat Transfer Specialists Engineering/Manufacturing

 

[markie]

Of course I know, as I stated before, that the terms can be interchanged. What I am pointing out, and what requires no scientific literacy at all, but only a modicum of honesty, is that when you denied that you had stated that watts are a unit of heat you were, at the very least, recalling inaccurately.

Huh? I would never state that "watts are a unit of heat". Heat is energy; power is energy per unit time.

When I say "watts of heat" I am really meaning rate of heat loss, which conversely at equilibrium means the rate of heat input as measured by (in the case of the 7 page report) wattage of an electrical resistance heater.

 

[markie]

Excellent point, jsfisher, and something I had missed. Combined with their uncurved curve, really makes their testing credibility nill.

Why not mention that the subsequent forty something page paper had a curve with more than two points? Why not mention that in that subsequent paper the heater element was a cartridge within the solution and not wrapped around the outside as before? Is it dishonesty, bias, laziness, ignorance or a combination of such? You be the judge.

 

[halleyscomet]

Why not mention that the subsequent forty something page paper had a curve with more than two points? Why not mention that in that subsequent paper the heater element was a cartridge within the solution and not wrapped around the outside as before? Is it dishonesty, bias, laziness, ignorance or a combination of such? You be the judge.

Nice goalposts. Convenient that you have them on wheels so you can shift them around whenever a particular topic gets too hot.

Why are you still defending a paper so flawed that even your own excuses for it accuse them of committing fraud?

The paper is crap. Admit it and move on with life.

 

[jsfisher]

I notice that page 4 is missing, which may have had some details on the pressure control. What is "explicit" is that a certain pressure of H2 gas, typical around 1000 psi was introduced at the *beginning*.

Yes, that is true. Table 6 explicitly states for the first test "Applied 1100 psi H₂ pressure at the start of test" [emphasis mine].

The "at the start of test" phrase is notably missing from other tests, but I'm sure the Thermacore folks were just using a convenient short-hand. "1100 psi" and "1100 psi at the start of test" mean the same thing.

...
If I am wrong and Thermacore's setup was actively maintaining a fixed pressure of hydrogen in the tubing, well then that would represent a pretty major blunder in the energy inventory calculation, something I find unlikely.

Many of us find blunders such as that likely.

Recall what is on Thermacore's letterhead on the handwritten reports: "Thermacore Inc. Heat Transfer Specialists Engineering/Manufacturing

I can get letterhead that says anything I want. Apparently, so could Thermacore, too.

 

[jsfisher]

Why not mention that the subsequent forty something page paper had a curve with more than two points? Why not mention that in that subsequent paper the heater element was a cartridge within the solution and not wrapped around the outside as before? Is it dishonesty, bias, laziness, ignorance or a combination of such? You be the judge.

You want to stick to that, that the heater element was in direct contact with the solution?

 

[Reality Check]

Physics Review Letters A rejected the paper. Mills shopped the paper around until he found a journal gullible (or incompetent) enough to publish it.

Fusion Technology seems to be a gullible journal rather than incompetent. The Thermacore reports list cold fusion papers published at Fusion Technology after cold fusion was shown to be dubious in May and November 1989.

History of cold fusion

On 1 May 1989 the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in Baltimore, including many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion.
...
The United States Department of Energy organized a special panel to review cold fusion theory and research.[58] The panel issued its report in November 1989, concluding that results as of that date did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion.[59] The panel noted the large number of failures to replicate excess heat and the greater inconsistency of reports of nuclear reaction byproducts expected by established conjecture.

 

[markie]

Nice goalposts. Convenient that you have them on wheels so you can shift them around whenever a particular topic gets too hot.

Why are you still defending a paper so flawed that even your own excuses for it accuse them of committing fraud?

The paper is crap. Admit it and move on with life.

Which paper is crap? I found them both good in different ways as each had their particular purpose.

 

[markie]

You want to stick to that, that the heater element was in direct contact with the solution?

Why not? Don't go by the drawing on page 5; that was obviously lifted from the previous experiment, a fact that would have been mentioned on page 4 if it wasn't missing. The drawing of the cell in the long experiment is found on page 9, where one sees the 4 inch cartridge heater protruding into the middle of the cell from the bottom.

 

[halleyscomet]

Which paper is crap? I found them both good in different ways as each had their particular purpose.

I was focused on the one where you had to accuse the authors of fraud to explain how they got their results.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why not? Don't go by the drawing on page 5; that was obviously lifted from the previous experiment, a fact that would have been mentioned on page 4 if it wasn't missing.

You've gone from saying what "may" be on the missing page 4 to confidently stating what actually is on it. From where do you get this knowledge? Do you think all the information WRT the things you've had to assume are on the legendary page 4?

 

[UncertainH]

Fusion Technology seems to be a gullible journal rather than incompetent. The Thermacore reports list cold fusion papers published at Fusion Technology after cold fusion was shown to be dubious in May and November 1989.

History of cold fusion

Thanks for the link. If you read past the first few paragraphs it seems that LENR research continues to this day around the world with mixed results.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold-fusion-but-its-something/

 

[The Man]

Back of the envelope time again. Let's do some math with their numbers. From appendix "C" Gas tubing volume 8.5 in³ or just 139.3 cc (back of my envelope says more like 851.3 cc). Given 0.8 cc per second of hydrogen permeating through the tube (appendix "A"). Time for complete evacuation of tube 139.3/0.8 or about 174.125 seconds. Heck even my 851 cc volume for the tube only gives about 18 minutes.

Of course, as the permeation rate depends on temperature and pressure, reducing the number of molecules in the tube reduces the pressure and thus the permeation rate. In order to maintain the permeation rate over time you have to maintain the pressure in the tube over time.

Oops sorry, must have used the front of the envelop instead of the back. Looks like I used their volumetric calculation for the outside on the inside. My mistake. However we can just use the molar relation.

Pressure 7584233 Pascal
Volume 0.000139 meter^{3 Temp 573.15 Kelvin Gas Constant 8.3144598 J mol-1 K-1 That gives .221 mole of hydrogen in the tubing at that temperature and pressure. Rate of permeation (appendix A) 1.7 E-5 mole sec-1 Time for total molar amount in tube to permeate through at constant rate 3.6 hours}

 

[abaddon]

In your world, watts is a unit of heat?

Apparently, yes. So far, nobody has got to the bottom of this bizarre claim.

 

[The Man]

I notice that page 4 is missing, which may have had some details on the pressure control. What is "explicit" is that a certain pressure of H2 gas, typical around 1000 psi was introduced at the *beginning*. The measurement of heat gain from this pressure increase was calculated for only one such application of pressure, so it is reasonable to assume there was only one application of pressure. Given this, the pressure in the tubing would be allowed to slowly decrease with time as hydrogen diffused through the tubing. Yes they used diffusion rate calculations as if the pressure was held steady at its initial state but imo that is just for calculation simplification purposes and would err on the conservative side.

Nope if pressure was not maintained migration of hydrogen would fall off as well eliminating any possible purported hydrogen reaction from such continue migration.

There is nothing "conservative" about no longer having your claimed reactant available in your test apparatus for your claimed reaction, no matter what you want to calculate.

If I am wrong and Thermacore's setup was actively maintaining a fixed pressure of hydrogen in the tubing, well then that would represent a pretty major blunder in the energy inventory calculation, something I find unlikely.

Your perception of it being "unlikely" in no way alleviates the fact that such energy input was required and not accounted for or monitored.

I see here that you are more than willing to just assume them falling in the testing by simply not maintain pressure as asserted above, but find it "unlikely" that they simply failed to account for some energy input.

As Reality Check notes up thread you have to cover all the bases and accounting for all external energy deliberately input is just stepping into the on deck circle.

Recall what is on Thermacore's letterhead on the handwritten reports: "Thermacore Inc. Heat Transfer Specialists Engineering/Manufacturing

Letterhead does not mitigate obvious and poor test procedures. I was Senior Laboratory Technician in an engineering lab for over a decade and temperature testing analogous to this is what I did every day.

 

[markie]

Apparently, yes. So far, nobody has got to the bottom of this bizarre claim.

The bottom is not deep. It was yesterday when I posted

Huh? I would never state that "watts are a unit of heat". Heat is energy; power is energy per unit time.
When I say "watts of heat" I am really meaning rate of heat loss, which conversely at equilibrium means the rate of heat input as measured by (in the case of the 7 page report) wattage of an electrical resistance heater.

 

[markie]

You've gone from saying what "may" be on the missing page 4 to confidently stating what actually is on it. From where do you get this knowledge? Do you think all the information WRT the things you've had to assume are on the legendary page 4?

Well they wouldn't plunk diagrams from their previous experiment on page 5 without any context. Page 3 at the end is starting to discuss their prior approach and so it only makes sense that the legendary page 4 would refer to "Figure 1A" which was taken from their prior experiment and appeared on page 5.

 

[markie]

Oops sorry, must have used the front of the envelop instead of the back. Looks like I used their volumetric calculation for the outside on the inside. My mistake. However we can just use the molar relation.

Pressure 7584233 Pascal
Volume 0.000139 meter^{3 Temp 573.15 Kelvin Gas Constant 8.3144598 J mol-1 K-1 That gives .221 mole of hydrogen in the tubing at that temperature and pressure. Rate of permeation (appendix A) 1.7 E-5 mole sec-1 Time for total molar amount in tube to permeate through at constant rate 3.6 hours}

^{OK, lets assume they goofed in the energy calculation. Why not go further. According to their calculation on page 46 it takes 520 joules of energy to compress the gas in the tube volume to about 1000 psi. Then, according to your calculation, they would have to (in effect) apply this 520 joules every 3.6 hours to keep the tubing at full gas pressure. That amounts to a power of less than .05 watts. Yet the power of the excess heat is 25 watts. So, even though their assumed blunder is a blunder, it is an insignificant one in terms of actual energy inventory.}

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks for the link. If you read past the first few paragraphs it seems that LENR research continues to this day around the world with mixed results.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold-fusion-but-its-something/

Researchers have continued with cold fusion research for almost 30 years with no convincing results. No definitive, actual fusion products detected. Mixed extra heat results.

Widom-Larsen theory is almost pseudoscience supposed to explain this. Their 2006 paper has been cited 11 times and some of those citations present evidence against it.

The Scientific American newsletter is dubious. It uses cherry picked anecdotes, e.g. an uncited comment by Edward Teller in 1989, a story (rumor?) of tables of tritium production and low-levels of neutrons being removed from a paper. This is not a surprise because the authors are biased. Steven B. Krivit and Michael J. Ravnitzky are LENR advocates. Krivit wrote 3 books about LENR and Ravnitzky was the developmental editor of the books.

 

[jsfisher]

If I am wrong and Thermacore's setup was actively maintaining a fixed pressure of hydrogen in the tubing, well then that would represent a pretty major blunder in the energy inventory calculation, something I find unlikely.

OK, lets assume they goofed in the energy calculation. Why not go further. According to their calculation on page 46 it takes 520 joules of energy to compress the gas in the tube volume to about 1000 psi. Then, according to your calculation, they would have to (in effect) apply this 520 joules every 3.6 hours to keep the tubing at full gas pressure. That amounts to a power of less than .05 watts. Yet the power of the excess heat is 25 watts. So, even though their assumed blunder is a blunder, it is an insignificant one in terms of actual energy inventory.

You are consistently inconsistent.